Rhetorical Structure of English and Czech Academic Book Reviews Jana Kozubíková Šandová University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Czech Republic This study focuses on a contrastive analysis of linguistics book review articles written in English and Czech. The aim is two-fold: 1) to find out any variation in the rhetorical structure of these reviews; 2) to explore whether these structural differences somehow affect the way communicative goals of the genre of the book review article are achieved in the two language cultures. The theoretical framework of this study provides a modified version of Motta-Roth's (1995) taxonomy of rhetorical moves and their sub-functions in book review articles. The results show that in spite of a number of similarities between the two writing traditions, certain variation occurs attributable to different rhetorical preferences of both cultures and varied cultural expectations of the genre. Keywords: book review article, academic discourse, genre analysis, rhetorical structure, rhetorical move 1. Introduction This paper is an investigation about whether the rhetorical structure of the book review article written in English may be found in corresponding texts in different languages. Therefore, one aim of the present study is to examine any variation in the rhetorical structure of English and Czech academic book reviews. This paper also attempts to find out whether the possible differences in the internal structure somehow influence achieving communicative goals of the book review articles in the two different academic writing traditions. Nowadays, academic review genres have taken on importance in applied linguistics literature. One of the reasons may be that the Internet abounds with various scholarly articles and scientific books so gaining access to them is much easier than ever before. As a result, it is very difficult for scholars to orient themselves in all these works and information they contain, and to distinguish between valuable contributions and those of a lower quality. Therefore, book reviews have gained significance in academia. The genre of the book review article plays a crucial role in introducing new book titles to a specific discipline and in assessing their quality considering the latest development in the field. The book review article describes the structure and contents of the book, its purpose, the ease one can read the text, the clarity of tables or graphs, the quality or appropriateness of the corpus under study, etc. It highlights the most important parts of the book, evaluates it, and designates which given field of study the book belongs to. Therefore, such a review article belongs to discursive genres whose purpose is being descriptive, informative, and evaluative (Hyland 2000; De Carvalho 2001; Suárez & Moreno 2008, Dontcheva-Navrátilová 2018). Even though the significance of the genre of the book review article has been clearly recognised by the academic community, not much is known about those attributes which make it a distinctive genre. Initially, genre has been a literary concept which became common when analysing non-literary discourse. In his seminal work concerning the study of genres, Swales (1990: 58) offers this definition: A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognised by the expert members of the parent 202 discourse community, and thereby constitute the rationale for the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and influences and constrains choice of content and style. A similar claim has been made by Henry & Roseberry (1997: 480), who maintain that genre “groups texts together based primarily on their purpose within a social context.” Thus, the concept of genre is understood as a set of communicative events serving a specific communicative purpose and performed by various discourse communities. In order to be able to classify a text within a particular genre, it must follow adequate conventions and have a particular structure. This has been confirmed by Swales (1990, 2004), who points out that one of the aspects relevant for a comprehensive description of a genre is the generic rhetorical structure of a text, which has been proved by current research into the academic book review (cf. Motta-Roth 1995; Gea Valor & del Saz Rubio 2000-2001; Suárez & Moreno 2008; Hyland & Diani 2009, i.a.). The segment a text is composed of is called a move. The division of texts into rhetorical moves has also been developed by Swales (1990, 2004), who employed this approach by the functional description of particular sections of research articles. Swales defines a move as a “discoursal or rhetorical unit that performs a coherent communicative function in a written or spoken discourse” (2004: 228-229). In genre analysis, the concept of move is most frequently utilised to determine which regularly repeating structures appear within a particular genre. Depending on the general communicative function of the genre, moves may differ in length, stretching from one sentence to several paragraphs, but they usually consist of at least one proposition. As moves represent complete semantic and functional stretches of text determinable on the basis of their communicative function and linguistic boundaries, move analysis is very useful in genre-based approaches to discourse analysis (Connor & Mauranen 1999; Ding 2007). Thus, in a move analysis, rhetorical units are classified according to a specific communicative function each of these units perform with the aim of designating the overall communicative purposes of a text. These specific communicative functions then contribute to the general communicative intention of the whole genre. The special arrangement of the moves of a particular genre determines its specificity, which makes it distinct from other genres. As regards the number of moves of a particular genre, it is not fixed since there is no mutual relationship between the manner by which rhetorical units of a genre are organised and its formal arrangement (Parodi 2010). In this connection it must be emphasised that not all of the moves of a particular genre are always present in a text. Some moves are optional, i.e. discourse participants may choose to utilise these moves to make the communication more effective but they do not influence the function of the text. On the contrary, some moves are obligatory because they are vital for achieving the communicative function of the genre. All these features are examined within genre analysis, which started to be developed after the most significant work of Swales (1990) concerning this type of analysis was published. Following Swales, extensive research into various academic genres has been carried out, for example, into research articles (Dontcheva-Navrátilová 2016; Hyland 2000; Holmes 1997; Nwogu 1997, i.a.), grant proposals (Connor & Mauranen 1999), company audit reports (Flowerdew & Wan 2010), or essay conclusions (Henry & Roseberry 1997). The genre of the book review has not received as much attention. Therefore, Motta-Roth’s (1995, 1998) examination of the rhetorical macrostructure of English book reviews in the disciplines of chemistry, economics, and linguistics may be regarded as a pioneering study in the field of move analysis stemming from the Swalesian tradition. The outcomes of Motta-Roth’s study relating to the overall rhetorical structure of academic book reviews have been corroborated by work of other scholars, for instance, by Suárez & Moreno (2008), De Carvalho (2001), Gea Valor (2000), or Nicolaisen (2002). None of these studies reveal 203 any major differences in the basic organisation of book reviews, either cross-linguistically and cross- disciplinarily. This supports the claim that the book review may be considered a distinctive genre. However, as Suárez & Moreno (2008) correctly point out, subtle cross-linguistic and cross- disciplinary variations have been found out so in order to perform as accurate a description of the rhetorical structure of the book review as possible, it is necessary to reflect on these differences. 2. Material and method For the purpose of this study, a corpus of 40 linguistics book review articles was compiled. The Anglophone sub-corpus contains 20 book reviews excerpted from distinguished linguistic journals (Journal of Pragmatics, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Journal of Linguistics, Applied Linguistics, and International Journal of English Studies) written in English by Anglophone scholars affiliated with British or American universities. The Czech sub-corpus comprises likewise 20 book review articles, published in two distinguished peer-reviewed Czech linguistic journals (Časopis pro moderní filologii, Slovo a slovesnost). The authors of Czech reviews are academics of Czech origin employed by Czech universities. Even though there is a certain difference in the Anglophone and Czech journals used in this study as for the prestige and size of the target audience, the book reviews drawn from them form a representative sample for the purpose of this research. All reviews were published between 2015 and 2018. The extent of the whole corpus is 80,237 words, the Anglophone sub-corpus containing 40,176 words, the Czech sub-corpus reaching the amount of 40,061 words. Both sub-corpora are almost identical in size, hence, they can be mutually compared. Rhetorical move analysis was adopted to identify the individual moves of which each book review